As the Paris Olympics come to a close, France is gearing up for another big moment. Following the rollercoaster snap elections over two rounds in June and July, President Emmanuel Macron must now nominate a Prime Minister. The catch of course, is that this will be from the left wing New Popular Front coalition (Nouveau Front Populaire, or NFP), which secured the highest number of seats in the National Assembly, rather than Macron’s centrist Ensemble party. This is a unique feature of France’s semi-presidential system, where the Prime Minister and President can be from different parties, with very different interests. In a nutshell, this is what the French call “cohabitation”.
Thrice has France been through such a dilemma before, with largely different outcomes. Cohabitations come in all shapes, and their success depends largely on the relationship between the Prime Minister and President. The second cohabitation period in 1986-1988 was one marked by “moderation and conciliation”, while the other two instances prove to be far more tense, with the two leaders in a “constant state of rivalry”.
The longest and most recent such cohabitation was from 1997-2002, with issues often flaring up between President Jacques Chirac, and the Government led by Lionel Jospin. Economically, the GDP growth rate would decline substantially from 2.3% in 1997 to 1.1% in 2002, while politically the two would frequently disagree on whether or not the president had the “last word” on key issues. The President also had the ability to not sign ordinances brought by the Government, making bills harder to come into effect. That period had various parallels to the current scenario as even then the Government was picked out of a leftist coalition, following snap elections where the President took a gamble.
So here’s the million dollar question: What kind of cohabitation will this one be?
If there is one thing that this fourth cohabitation promises, it is flaring disagreements. After all, the NFP has galvanised the support of the working class, widely disillusioned with Macron’s alleged propensity to act as a “President of the Rich“. The left also garnered votes aplenty from students, who have largely opposed France’s non-committal stance towards Palestine. Ultimately, there are two core issues that the Government and the President are likely to clash over: Foreign Policy, and the constitutional future of the French Fifth Republic.
The Tussle over Foreign Policy
One of the most contentious areas during cohabitation is foreign policy, an area where the NFP and the Centrists seem to strongly disagree on a number of counts. The President is seen to be in charge of foreign policy, and in a related vein, is “Commander in Chief of the armed forces” (According to article 15 of the Constitution). This is what the French call “domain reservee”, or reserved domain for the President to mainly make decisions on. However the constitution does nonetheless bear some ambiguities on this matter, with the Prime Minister being “responsible for national defense” according to article 21, thereby causing things to heat up during cohabitation.
The big question will of course be around Gaza. The election manifesto of the NFP very clearly calls for a “break with the guilty support of the French Government for Netanyahu’s far right supremacist Government”. Furthermore, they advocate in favour of an embargo and sanctions, as well as an increased push to follow orders by the International Court of Justice. This is a far cry from the approach France has taken so far, being rather coy on the Israel-Palestine issue. Despite a massive wave of student protests across France demanding official condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza in April and May, French officials cited bad “timing” as a reason for not recognising the Palestinian state, even though a number of their neighbours did so. Part of the reason is that such a move would spark questions about the sovereignty of French overseas territories, with New Caledonia having seen constant unrest for the last three months. The left however seems determined to significantly change this stance, with leaders like Jean Luc Melenchon having described the student protests as upholding the “honour” of France. It will be interesting to see how this divergence between President and Parliament is dealt with.
This is by no means the only area where foreign policy perspectives clash. The left opposed Macron’s approach to diplomacy, such as the controversial reform of the French diplomatic corps, which created a lower emphasis on professional expertise in diplomatic networks. France’s approach to Africa is also something the left seems to move away from, given how the CFA Franc regime is considered by some to be unfair towards the African nations which fall under it. Instead, the left emphasises ties more cognisant of African countries’ sovereignty. Finally, greater autonomy to the French overseas territories also seems to be on the cards, in line with the NFP’s broader ethos of political and administrative decentralisation in the spirit of “emancipation and decolonisation”.
The Fall of the Fifth Republic?
The current semi-presidential avatar of the French constitutional system, widely known as the “Fifth Republic”, came into being in 1958. This was during the turmoil of the Algerian war of independence, when the parliamentary system of the French Fourth Republic was unable to cope with the crisis due to instability and the lack of a strong leader. With the support of Military officers opposing the decolonisation of Algeria, in stepped World War veteran Charles De Gaulle, reinventing the role of the French President, who would now wield significant decision making power under the constitution of 1958.
This system has sustained since then, but the left is looking to break away from it. Leaders on the French left have boldly proclaimed their desire to move into a “Sixth Republic”, one which would be based on a proportional representation based electoral system, with the President’s powers significantly decreased. This comes after years of accusations that Macron has largely centralised power and has an excessively involved role as President, even more broadly within the EU. Needless to say, if a leftist government does opt to push this agenda, then neither Macron nor the right would be too pleased.
The NFP is also keen to oppose article 49.3 of the constitution which allows the Government to push budget related bills through parliament without a vote. This is in part a reaction to the manner in which Macron passed the extremely controversial pension reforms in 2023, a move which saw cities across France engulfed by flames and riots. Directly too, the NFP has promised to restore the retirement age to 60. In general, a lot of the left’s core promises have revolved around decentralisation of authority, with more agency to be provided to local bodies as well as to citizens (who could prospectively be provided with the power to initiate Swiss style citizen referendums).
Of course, at the centre of the cohabitation puzzle lies another key piece: The personality of the Prime Minister. A moderate like Olivier Faure or soft right candidate like Xavier Bertrand could glue together multiple sides of the political spectrum, thus not making it a strictly leftist Government, and likely reducing the chances of clashing with the president. On the other hand, if a lifetime leftist like Jean Luc Melenchon were to ebcome Prime Minister, his relationship with the President would likely be far more fragile.
My two cents is that a substantial move towards a sixth republic is extremely unlikely anytime before the 2027 presidential elections, but that does not make this line of discussion moot. Rather, it presents a clearer picture of the next few years: One where contrasting ethos and political visions are likely to clash, as France once again trudges into the dreaded quagmire of cohabitation.
[Image credit: Pixabay]
Dhruv Banerjee is a political journalist. He currently works in the Foreign Policy and Security Vertical at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP, formerly Brookings India). The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
